MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W610464756

Roundaboust on Alberta Highways

2014· article· fr· W610464756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation 2014: Past, Present, Future - 2014 Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada // Transport 2014 : Du passé vers l'avenir - 2014 Congrès et Exposition de 'Association des transports du Canada · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Transport Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundaboutTransport engineeringBottleneckIntersection (aeronautics)EngineeringRight of wayGeometric designOperations management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roundabouts have become commonplace in numerous locations across the globe; however, they are relatively new in Alberta. Experience has shown marked improvements in safety and efficiency, and thus roundabouts have become an ideal option over signalized intersections or other intersection improvements. Additionally, their operation and maintenance costs are typically lower than for signalized intersections. However, in Alberta, there are concerns that current roundabout construction costs are high in comparison to alternate options. Numerous commercial loads, including oversize and overweight (OSOW) vehicles, use Alberta’s highway corridors on a daily basis. The department’s intent is to maintain a highway system that will have no blockages for high loads or oversized loads. Roundabouts may present a bottleneck if OSOW loads are not considered. This problem can be addressed by constructing wider approaches and/or using wide aprons; yet this comes at a cost for construction and may adversely affect operations by regular traffic due to higher speed entries. Another strategy is to make the centre island completely traversable with removable signs. However, situations such as these may present higher costs than anticipated. The department has identified potential high cost factors, including: traffic accommodation during construction, size of inner circle and overrun areas and the required amount of concrete, design life, etc. There is a general consensus that the cost will decrease once roundabouts become less unknown to contractors, as presently they are not accustomed to roundabout construction. The department aims to determine best design practices for roundabouts with the most cost-effective solution. For example, one good design practice is to build a roundabout that works for current volumes plus a reasonable time period (i.e. 10 years), and then be prepared to add additional lanes if required. Aside from saving cost, this practice is safer and allows drivers to adjust to a simpler roundabout. Cost-sharing formulas have also been proposed to finance the roundabout. For the purposes of this paper, a comparison of construction practice and resulting costs of existing roundabouts will be presented. Information on roundabout practices in other jurisdictions, with a focus on the accommodation of OSOW loads, will be obtained through comprehensive literature review and communication with professionals. The main intent of this paper is to identify potential improvements to current roundabout design and construction and to provide recommendations on the most efficient solution that maximizes safety while being fiscally acceptable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it